On August 15, the Ohio Libertarian Party filed this Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Proceedings, in the ballot access lawsuit that it filed early this month. The party argues that the case deserves expedited hearing because the Secretary of State has even canceled the party’s ballot status for the 2011 partisan local elections that it had been intending to participate in. The case is Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, 2:11-cv-722.
Isn’t it disingenuous to claim that the filing deadline was only changed by 30 days, given that the decisions in Blackwell and Brunner made a point of emphasis that this was either a year before the general election or 11 months.
The Brunner decision didn’t really address the issue of the number of signatures. So you have Blackwell emphasizing that it was a combination of factors that caused the Ohio system to be declared unconstitutional; and then the Brunner decision emphasizing that the SOS did not have the authority to change congressional election procedures, that the 20-day change was insufficient, and largely disregarded the change in the number of signatures. The decision also chastised the legislature for not making changes to the law.
How many Ohio cities have partisan elections? The statute for qualifying parties disregards them entirely, specifying that parties are qualifying for the even-year election. Ohio should simply tell any cities that want to have partisan elections that they can qualify the parties.
Separate is NOT equal
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
— even in Ohio with its infamous gerrymanders.
Our candidates are listed on lpo.org
Left menu bar and “2011 candidates”
One of the most active and organized Libertarian affiliates in the country. Ran a full slate of candidates for statewide offices in 2010. Got over 1 million votes for the candidates in 2010. Is anyone surprised that the GOP wants to put the smack down on us now? We got their attention in 2010 and now they want our attention.
The 2006 decision also stressed that the recent history of party qualification was a reason the old law was unconstitutional. No group has successfully completed the party petition since 2000. Ohio was the only large-population state with no parties on the ballot, other than Democratic and Republican, in the period 2002-2006.
#3 (so I take it Columbus and Toledo are not, but Akron is?) Does the candidate in Akron have a “T” in his name?
I don’t understand why there is a concern that a law that doesn’t take effect until September 30, 2011; would have an effect on a primary that occurs September 13, 2011?
Ultimately, the 2006 decision said that the Ohio law was not constitutional enough; but didn’t say what what would be constitutional. And one of the 3-judge panel said it was constitutional.
So unless Ohio adopts a Top 2 Open Primary, there will probably be a continuing iterative process.
Jim, what are you talking about.
Ohio Primaries are in even-numbered years in the Spring.
The government in Ohio is taking our brand name off our candidates for 2011 also! There are a couple partisan races we are in at local level in 2011.
Former SOS did a directive in early January, which put our party on the ballot for 2011. We have had candidates out campaigning for months. The ones in partisan races expected to have their party name under their name. And now that entire plan is being reversed by the new GOP-dominated government in Ohio.
It is a low blow this late in the campaign season for Ohio.